Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

I agree with your point of Rosewall getting burnt out at Wimbledon.he had to overcome the two last great W champs, Smith and Newcombe.But I would not say that much about the 74 USO.

Tanner and Amitraj did not wera him down as much.

Connors had to fight a guy called Kodes, who would wear his opponents down.He had a tough path before meeting the 3 times GS champion.Stockton was not that much of a deal but he was just as much tired as Kenny should be.IMO.

Click to expand...

kiki, I would say that Rosewall at the US Open was tired after his four set SF against Newcombe. He beat Tanner at Wimbledon.

Dan Lobb and Bobby one, I was wondering about Hoad. He won 4 majors, if I am correct. I did think to include him but I was need to research him more. I am not sure either about Lendl over McEnroe but I feel the 6 US open final streak pips Lendl ahead for me.
Where can I see ur lists in this thread? Do you know the pages?

Dan Lobb and Bobby one, I was wondering about Hoad. He won 4 majors, if I am correct. I did think to include him but I was need to research him more. I am not sure either about Lendl over McEnroe but I feel the 6 US open final streak pips Lendl ahead for me.
Where can I see ur lists in this thread? Do you know the pages?

Click to expand...

Hoad's always been a subject of debate with many experts. Some say at his best (for one match, maybe a series of matches) that he was the best of all time. He played a very risky style which also allowed him to often lose to players that he should have considering his talent beat fairly easily. Not sure if he ever was CLEARLY the best player in any one year. That's a subject constantly debated by experts and in this thread by BobbyOne and Dan Lobb in their never ending debate. Hoad did play extremely strong competition in the pros when he played Gonzalez, Rosewall, Segura, Sedgman, Trabert, Cooper, Anderson among others. These are with the exception of Cooper and Anderson (and they were excellent players) all time great players.

As far as Lendl and McEnroe are concerned, Lendl clearly is ahead of McEnroe in my opinion. Lendl won 146 tournaments in his career plus 8 majors. McEnroe won around 100 tournaments and 7 majors. Lendl is slightly ahead in lifetime winning percentage also at around 81.8% to 81.5%. However Lendl did this while he played more matches. For players who only played in the open era I believe Connors and Lendl have won the most tournaments. Connors is number one at 149.

Dan Lobb and Bobby one, I was wondering about Hoad. He won 4 majors, if I am correct. I did think to include him but I was need to research him more. I am not sure either about Lendl over McEnroe but I feel the 6 US open final streak pips Lendl ahead for me.
Where can I see ur lists in this thread? Do you know the pages?

Based on achievements what makes you place Gonzalez and Tilden higher than Fed?

Did you intentionally not place you know who in there?

Click to expand...

forzamilan90,

Gonzalez and Tilden have awesome records. Both were No.1 for many years.

I don't rank Federer very high because some of his great achievements are caused by the fact that Roger faced rather weak competition in several of his peak years.

While Tilden had to play against Johnston, Cochet and Lacoste, and Gonzalez against Kramer, Sedgman, Segura, Trabert , Hoad and Rosewall plus Laver, Federer played against Hewitt, Roddick and Safin. That makes the difference!.

I still believe that Roche and Newcombe would beat Federer more often than he would beat them, not to speak about Borg and Lendl...

But I'm glad you don't contradict that I rank Laver and Rosewall ahead of Federer.

Gonzalez and Tilden have awesome records. Both were No.1 for many years.

I don't rank Federer very high because some of his great achievements are caused by the fact that Roger faced rather weak competition in several of his peak years.

While Tilden had to play against Johnston, Cochet and Lacoste, and Gonzalez against Kramer, Sedgman, Segura, Trabert , Hoad and Rosewall plus Laver, Federer played against Hewitt, Roddick and Safin. That makes the difference!.

I still believe that Roche and Newcombe would beat Federer more often than he would beat them, not to speak about Borg and Lendl...

But I'm glad you don't contradict that I rank Laver and Rosewall ahead of Federer.

Click to expand...

Here's my take on things. I think any records that Gonzales or Tilden possess, have nothing on the eagle's open era achievements.
Also, I think prime Fed would absolutely destroy the likes of Roche and Newcombe. Not thinking that his peak level of play is all time top 10 worthy is a travesty of the highest order (have you seen the dude play like really?) imo. The greatest open era tennis player by a considerate margin (records, streaks, dominance, ridiculous shot making, crazy level of play, all around package), and not even top 10 all time of level of play .

lol you obviously know that I wouldn't rank either Laver or Rosewall above Fed. Rosewall is a level below Laver imo. Laver I really really hold in high regard, I got him at number 2 after Fed. Rosewall's longevity and overall records are great, but no peak insane level like Fed or Laver as far as I am concerned. See my top 10 greatest:

Don't mind Bobby. I don't think he believe what he's saying. Of course he intended to leave out Roger, who's widely consider the greatest player.

Click to expand...

after that post I cannot take what he says seriously. F**** Roche in top 10 level of play, but not the most dominating, documented, analyzed, victorious, revered open era player WTF?

clearly a troll move. He's got Nadal and Djoker there, but no Fed. Those guys combined can't touch Fed. Hell even Djoker's awesome last year, comes short of what Fed did during his prime reign. Whatever, there's only a few guys like that on the forum (Thundervolley, kiki, BobbyOne, sometimes NadalAgassi, 90s clay comes to mind; dudes with clear cut, anti Fed agendas) . Most of the people have the right idea on who the boss is.

after that post I cannot take what he says seriously. F**** Roche in top 10 level of play, but not the most dominating, documented, analyzed, victorious, revered open era player WTF?

clearly a troll move. He's got Nadal and Djoker there, but no Fed. Those guys combined can't touch Fed. Hell even Djoker's awesome last year, comes short of what Fed did during his prime reign. Whatever, there's only a few guys like that on the forum (Thundervolley, kiki, BobbyOne, sometimes NadalAgassi, 90s clay comes to mind; dudes with clear cut, anti Fed agendas) . Most of the people have the right idea on who the boss is.

Click to expand...

Yes. I know it's crazy. This is a "The Laver Forum", and that's what you would expected. For having Roger not in the top 10 but yet they criticize the experts from The Tennis Channel.

the most dominating, documented, analyzed, victorious, revered open era player

LOL at the **** melodrama. If BobbyOne is a bit biased against Federer, he is only one counteracting the rampage of lovesick Fed adoring lunatics on Planet TW.

Click to expand...

counterracting by having Roche, Nadal and Djoker there?

and btw regarding my sentence, absolutely nothing false written there
...
most dominating in open era? yeah can't argue with that

most documented open era player? well yeah along with other current players no hypothetical here, titles, tour events, highlights everything documented available to see.

most analyzed open era player? do I even have to go here? Fed's name is constantly thrown around in tennis circles, forums, etc. and has been for a while. Add his chase for the record books, and analysis goes only deeper.

most victorious open era player? undisputed here. ****load of big titles all legit, not counting exos or anything (lots and lots of slams, masters, wtfs)

Here's my take on things. I think any records that Gonzales or Tilden possess, have nothing on the eagle's open era achievements.
Also, I think prime Fed would absolutely destroy the likes of Roche and Newcombe. Not thinking that his peak level of play is all time top 10 worthy is a travesty of the highest order (have you seen the dude play like really?) imo. The greatest open era tennis player by a considerate margin (records, streaks, dominance, ridiculous shot making, crazy level of play, all around package), and not even top 10 all time of level of play .

lol you obviously know that I wouldn't rank either Laver or Rosewall above Fed. Rosewall is a level below Laver imo. Laver I really really hold in high regard, I got him at number 2 after Fed. Rosewall's longevity and overall records are great, but no peak insane level like Fed or Laver as far as I am concerned. See my top 10 greatest:

At least it's interesting that we have the same top seven players (in different order).

I'm aware I have annoyed the Federer fans.

Now, to even offend the Laver fans, I still claim that Rosewall's record is about even with Laver's: Rosewall won 4 more majors than Laver; he won nine majors in a row (Laver 4), his longevity is much greater; their hth at majors is 10:7 in Ken's favour; at the biggest tournament of each year (Wembley, Wimbledon, US Open 1972 and 1973) Rosewall won 5, reached final 5 times and SFs 5 times: Laver is 6/0/0, and so on...

Laver won his Wimbledons and his GSs in an age of life (23 to 30) when Rosewall was not allowed to play them.

after that post I cannot take what he says seriously. F**** Roche in top 10 level of play, but not the most dominating, documented, analyzed, victorious, revered open era player WTF?

clearly a troll move. He's got Nadal and Djoker there, but no Fed. Those guys combined can't touch Fed. Hell even Djoker's awesome last year, comes short of what Fed did during his prime reign. Whatever, there's only a few guys like that on the forum (Thundervolley, kiki, BobbyOne, sometimes NadalAgassi, 90s clay comes to mind; dudes with clear cut, anti Fed agendas) . Most of the people have the right idea on who the boss is.

Click to expand...

forzamilan90, Roche was not far away from Laver in the latter's great year, 1969.F.i. he beat Rod 5:4 matches that year. He is hugely underrated.

Nadal and Djokovic cannot touch Federer?? Then, why has Rafa a positive balance against Roger? And why has Federer won only 1 (=one, =ONE) out of the last 11 majors and lost the Olympics? His dominance lasted only till the time when Nadal, Djokovic and Murray (plus Del Potro) reached their peak...

and btw regarding my sentence, absolutely nothing false written there
...
most dominating in open era? yeah can't argue with that

most documented open era player? well yeah along with other current players no hypothetical here, titles, tour events, highlights everything documented available to see.

most analyzed open era player? do I even have to go here? Fed's name is constantly thrown around in tennis circles, forums, etc. and has been for a while. Add his chase for the record books, and analysis goes only deeper.

most victorious open era player? undisputed here. ****load of big titles all legit, not counting exos or anything (lots and lots of slams, masters, wtfs)

after that post I cannot take what he says seriously. F**** Roche in top 10 level of play, but not the most dominating, documented, analyzed, victorious, revered open era player WTF?

clearly a troll move. He's got Nadal and Djoker there, but no Fed. Those guys combined can't touch Fed. Hell even Djoker's awesome last year, comes short of what Fed did during his prime reign. Whatever, there's only a few guys like that on the forum (Thundervolley, kiki, BobbyOne, sometimes NadalAgassi, 90s clay comes to mind; dudes with clear cut, anti Fed agendas) . Most of the people have the right idea on who the boss is.

Click to expand...

So anyone that doesn't think Federer is the GOAT has an anti-Federer agenda?

forzamilan90, Roche was not far away from Laver in the latter's great year, 1969.F.i. he beat Rod 5:4 matches that year. He is hugely underrated.

Nadal and Djokovic cannot touch Federer?? Then, why has Rafa a positive balance against Roger? And why has Federer won only 1 (=one, =ONE) out of the last 11 majors and lost the Olympics? His dominance lasted only till the time when Nadal, Djokovic and Murray (plus Del Potro) reached their peak...

Click to expand...

I'm aware of Roche, great player but come on given the absense of the obvious suspect from that post, while having the other two notable current players and having Roche on that list made go after you. Indirectly, it's like saying Roche's level of peak play>Fed's which I cannot accept at all. It's like saying Safin, who's a talented player who's got a notable win over Fed, Safin's peak level of play>say Laver or a Rosewall. Roche, Safin great player with good peak level of play, but no way do they touche the all time greats of the higher tiers.

The Nadal thing is due to match up advantage he has over Fed and the fact the majority of their meetings are on clay (fed has won 2 clay matches against Nadal only). On the other surfaces (hard and grass) Fed actually leads the head to head. So combine the three surfaces, and Fed leads 2-1, but majority of those meetings were on clay, hence why Nadal has so many wins over Fed (11 I believe on clay out of 13 matches). He's the clay GOAT so no shame there, especially when Nadal's game is so perfectly tailored for his Fed's legend killer performances.

Fed ain't a spring chicken anymore, he's not in his prime, hence why he ain't racking up majors. Besides I think he is still hanging on strong (you do know he was number 1 for a while this year?). It's just compared to his prime he appears weaker not (and he has lost a step, it's only natural). You got to give them man more credit than that.

after that post I cannot take what he says seriously. F**** Roche in top 10 level of play, but not the most dominating, documented, analyzed, victorious, revered open era player WTF?

clearly a troll move. He's got Nadal and Djoker there, but no Fed. Those guys combined can't touch Fed. Hell even Djoker's awesome last year, comes short of what Fed did during his prime reign. Whatever, there's only a few guys like that on the forum (Thundervolley, kiki, BobbyOne, sometimes NadalAgassi, 90s clay comes to mind; dudes with clear cut, anti Fed agendas) . Most of the people have the right idea on who the boss is.

Click to expand...

this .......... BobbyOne is another one of those with an anti-federer bias ......

So anyone that doesn't think Federer is the GOAT has an anti-Federer agenda?

Click to expand...

BauerAlmeida,

Yes, fanatics like TMF (Federer) and Dan Lobb (Hoad) cannot understand that this who does not praise their darling as much as they do has an agenda to belittle their God and they cannot accept that serious people consider along facts and logic...

I'm aware of Roche, great player but come on given the absense of the obvious suspect from that post, while having the other two notable current players and having Roche on that list made go after you. Indirectly, it's like saying Roche's level of peak play>Fed's which I cannot accept at all. It's like saying Safin, who's a talented player who's got a notable win over Fed, Safin's peak level of play>say Laver or a Rosewall. Roche, Safin great player with good peak level of play, but no way do they touche the all time greats of the higher tiers.

The Nadal thing is due to match up advantage he has over Fed and the fact the majority of their meetings are on clay (fed has won 2 clay matches against Nadal only). On the other surfaces (hard and grass) Fed actually leads the head to head. So combine the three surfaces, and Fed leads 2-1, but majority of those meetings were on clay, hence why Nadal has so many wins over Fed (11 I believe on clay out of 13 matches). He's the clay GOAT so no shame there, especially when Nadal's game is so perfectly tailored for his Fed's legend killer performances.

Fed ain't a spring chicken anymore, he's not in his prime, hence why he ain't racking up majors. Besides I think he is still hanging on strong (you do know he was number 1 for a while this year?). It's just compared to his prime he appears weaker not (and he has lost a step, it's only natural). You got to give them man more credit than that.

Click to expand...

forzamilan90, I'm grateful that you discuss with me seriously instead of insulting me.

I still say that Federer dominated a rather weak field in several years. He is a great player but yet overrated.

the most dominating, documented, analyzed, victorious, revered open era player

LOL at the **** melodrama. If BobbyOne is a bit biased against Federer, he is only one counteracting the rampage of lovesick Fed adoring lunatics on Planet TW.

Click to expand...

You are NOT objective, not even one bit. Don't even pretend to be so. You cleverly pursue your anti Federer agenda in every thread.

You would join some threads, then would pick on some silly comment made by some Fed blind worshipper and then use terms like "****s" or "*******s" in derisive manner and stereotype all Federer fans. Even in that hypothetical thread about Roger Federer being gay, you just seconded a post by another Fed hater who said he thought Fed is a gay. The point is your anti Federer agenda is as obvious as Bobbyone or kiki. Anyone can notice that how Bobbyone is biased when he can include Nadal and Djokovic while he excludes Federer

You are NOT objective, not even one bit. Don't even pretend to be so. You cleverly pursue your anti Federer agenda in every thread.

You would join some threads, then would pick on some silly comment made by some Fed blind worshipper and then use terms like "****s" or "*******s" in derisive manner and stereotype all Federer fans. Even in that hypothetical thread about Roger Federer being gay, you just seconded a post by another Fed hater who said he thought Fed is a gay. The point is your anti Federer agenda is as obvious as Bobbyone or kiki. Anyone can notice that how Bobbyone is biased when he can include Nadal and Djokovic while he excludes Federer

Click to expand...

Feather, you overlook that even this who is a Federer fan can yet rank Roger behind a few (only a FEW) greats. I admire Federer as much as he deserves it (but not more just as most younger fans do).

I give you an example from classic music: Most people (especially those who never listen to classic music) claim that Mozart is the greatest classic composer. They overlook that at least two other men (Schubert and Beethoven) are arguably even greater than "Amadeus". It's easier to value as the majority does than to value as only a minority does even if the latter has more logic and facts.

forzamilan90, Roche was not far away from Laver in the latter's great year, 1969.F.i. he beat Rod 5:4 matches that year. He is hugely underrated.

Nadal and Djokovic cannot touch Federer?? Then, why has Rafa a positive balance against Roger? And why has Federer won only 1 (=one, =ONE) out of the last 11 majors and lost the Olympics? His dominance lasted only till the time when Nadal, Djokovic and Murray (plus Del Potro) reached their peak...

Click to expand...

I know am wasting time with a Federer hater but still

Let us analyze the Rafa - Nadal head to head 12-2 on clay to Nadal, 6-5 on hard courts to Federer and 2-1 for Federer on Grass. That means even at age 31 he leads Rafa on two surfaces out of three

Roger was too good to reach consistantly the finals of clay slams and he lost to Rafa. He could have lost early like Pete Sampras and he could have saved his head to head

Roger lost to Rafa in AO final when he was 28, in 2009. Roger was past his prime and Rafa is in his prime. What do you expect? If you claim to be a historian in Tennis then you would obviously know that there is nothing surprising in that result. Rafa didn't make it to the finals on hard courts when Roger was in his prime. That was not either player's fault

All the surfaces have slowed down a lot considerably. It includes Wimbledon and US Open. You would obviously know that it would help defensive players like Rafa and Novak more when they play Roger. The slowing down or homogenization of surfaces has hurt Roger the more since he is the attacking player in the three..

US Open, Roger and Rafa never played there. Roger lost twice to Novak but in those matches he was twice on match points. This despite Roger past his prime and the surface slowed down a lot.. You saw what happened on a fast Cincinnati court when Roger bagelled Novak Djokovic

Roger is playing Rafa, Djokovic, Murray who are younger than him on surfaces that have slowed down a lot and he has to play a highly physical game at this point of his career to win matches. It's obvious that he will lose more. However, that doesn't take anything from his past..

Unfortunately there is no variety in Tennis now. Put past prime Federer and Djokovic/Nadal on a fast court and you will see what happens

So anyone that doesn't think Federer is the GOAT has an anti-Federer agenda?

Click to expand...

It's not like this. I am a die hard Federer fan and I have never posted that Roger is GOAT.

Posters like NadalAgassi, BobbyOne. kiki etc have an anti Federer agenda and they pursue that religiously. You can accept a difference of opinion easily. My point is they are not at all different from few Federer fanboys who blindly believe that Roger Federer is good in everything!

It's not like this. I am a die hard Federer fan and I have never posted that Roger is GOAT.

Posters like NadalAgassi, BobbyOne. kiki etc have an anti Federer agenda and they pursue that religiously. You can accept a difference of opinion easily. My point is they are not at all different from few Federer fanboys who blindly believe that Roger Federer is good in everything!

Click to expand...

That's not even including posters such as NSK or Jacksonvile who continuously post ********. There may well be a Federer bias on this forum, he does have the most fans after all, but it is being severely exaggerated. Certainly doesn't merit NadalAgassi bringing it up in every single post s/he makes especially when they are filled with insulting generalizations and a victim complex.

Let us analyze the Rafa - Nadal head to head 12-2 on clay to Nadal, 6-5 on hard courts to Federer and 2-1 for Federer on Grass. That means even at age 31 he leads Rafa on two surfaces out of three

Roger was too good to reach consistantly the finals of clay slams and he lost to Rafa. He could have lost early like Pete Sampras and he could have saved his head to head

Roger lost to Rafa in AO final when he was 28, in 2009. Roger was past his prime and Rafa is in his prime. What do you expect? If you claim to be a historian in Tennis then you would obviously know that there is nothing surprising in that result. Rafa didn't make it to the finals on hard courts when Roger was in his prime. That was not either player's fault

All the surfaces have slowed down a lot considerably. It includes Wimbledon and US Open. You would obviously know that it would help defensive players like Rafa and Novak more when they play Roger. The slowing down or homogenization of surfaces has hurt Roger the more since he is the attacking player in the three..

US Open, Roger and Rafa never played there. Roger lost twice to Novak but in those matches he was twice on match points. This despite Roger past his prime and the surface slowed down a lot.. You saw what happened on a fast Cincinnati court when Roger bagelled Novak Djokovic

Roger is playing Rafa, Djokovic, Murray who are younger than him on surfaces that have slowed down a lot and he has to play a highly physical game at this point of his career to win matches. It's obvious that he will lose more. However, that doesn't take anything from his past..

Unfortunately there is no variety in Tennis now. Put past prime Federer and Djokovic/Nadal on a fast court and you will see what happens

Click to expand...

Feather, when you call me a Federer hater, any discussion is senseless!

Just one last point: If you say that Federer was past his prime in 2009 (at 28!) then he cannot be a real great player...